Suchergebnisse

Thank you. It's a very common mistake to believe that consumers could only have a choice if the government requires mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food. My question back to you, Jean, is, exactly what kind of information do consumers get if all you do is label the product as "Genetically Engineered?" We can take this up later in the debate part of our panel discussion. I think the one thing that we can all agree on, however, is that the food label is a very important source of information to consumers.

1. Summary of the Nutrition Labeling Requirements2. Questions and Responses; 3. Illustrations of Supplement Facts Boxes; (i) Multiple Vitamins; (ii) Multiple Vitamins for Children and Adults; (iii) Multiple Vitamins in Packets; (iv) Dietary Supplement Containing Dietary Ingredients with and without RDls and DRVs; (v) A Proprietary Blend of Dietary Ingredients; (vi) Dietary Supplement of an Herb; (vii) Dietary Supplement of Amino Acids; (viii) Format Split and Continued to the Right; 4. Daily Values for Nutrition Labeling; 5. Illustration of Format Using Dots

What leads individuals to be motivated to act for human rights causes? Human rights organizations (HROs) often use personal and emotional stories of the abused in order to gain the attention of individuals reading newspapers or emails directly from the organization. McEntire, Leiby, and Krain show that personal frames are most successful at increasing knowledge about a specific human rights situation and motivating individuals to act. However, HROs are not operating in a political vacuum; repressive governments often try to spin information about abuses and the abused to their advantage. This study uses an experimental approach to address how the discursive interactions between states and HROs influence individual-level support of HRO efforts. When governments respond to HRO claims by labeling the abused as a terrorist, individuals are much less likely to be spurred into certain types of action, like signing a petition, and feel differently about the specific case. Interestingly, we do not find that trust in the information provided by an HRO is harmed by being associated with someone labeled a terrorist.

Labeling is required by the interpretive system. When a head merges with a phrase, the head provides the label. However, lexical heads and T with poor inflectional features are too weak to be labels. Although insightful, this theory leaves at least one problem that needs prompt solutions: are there other kinds of weak heads? In this paper, we address this issue by proposing that phonological features play a crucial role in the labeling algorithm and by putting forward an additional version of weak heads. That is, a head that loses phonological features in the syntax is also weak. This approach to weak heads, together with the constraint that a structure must be labeled for interpretation, can capture the distribution of empty categories in topicalization, relativization, ellipsis, and other phenomena, some of which have not received enough scholarly attention. Therefore, our syntactic-phonological approach to labeling can open up new possibilities to account for the distribution of empty categories in a principled manner.

The use of genetically designed organisms has sparked significant controversy in many areas. Some groups or individuals see the generation and use of GMO as intolerable meddling with biological states or processes that have naturally evolved over long periods of time, while others are concerned about the limitations of modern science to fully comprehend all of the potential negative ramifications of genetic manipulation. Labeling legislation has been introduced and rejected several times since 1996 on the grounds of 'restraint of trade' due to the cost of labeling. The controversy erupted again in 2009 when Graincorp, the U.S. largest grain handler, announced it would mix GM Canola with its unmodified grain. Traditional growers, who largely rely on GM-free markets, had been told that they would have to pay huge money to get endorsement on their products as GM free. Outside the U.S., the entire European Union and other countries such as Australia, China, Japan, and Russia require GMO labeling. In Australia, multiple surveys have shown that while 45% of the public accept GM foods, some 93% demand all genetically modified foods be labeled as such. In 2007, a survey by the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand depicted that 27% of Australians looked at the label to see if it contained GM material. There are other countries that make GMO labeling voluntary and many other countries have plans to introduce GMO labeling. In May 2012, the U.S. State of California voted on the labeling of genetically modified food. They opined that consumers have a right to know the content of their food and have a choice to avoid it if they do not wish to eat. On the other hand, advocates such as Du Pont, Monsanto and the Council for Biotechnology Information, which represents agribusiness, call it an attempt to scare consumers and make them feel that the food is unsafe. Though Biotechnology labeling is not enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), yet it has been adopted by over 40 countries. The present report summarizes ...

Through the lens of political ecology, the idea of alternative consumption, as defined by Bryant et al, is the consumption of more sustainable products with eco-labels alerting consumers about the benefits of purchasing said product instead of traditional products. Here, I examine the efficacy of Fair Trade certification on environmental sustainability and human rights in developing countries. Benefits accrued to Fair Trade, namely that certification informs consumers about environmental and social issues occurring in developing countries, provides consumers an option for "alternative", more sustainable consumption, encourages businesses to develop in a more sustainable manner, and also may provide premiums that support environmental conservation and human well-being in developing countries or traditionally rentier-states. However, several drawbacks of Fair Trade certification and alternative consumption also have been noted, namely the concerns about corporate greenwashing, as well as the potential for creating a moral hazard for consumers who feel as though they are making a difference by simply perpetuating a neo-liberal capitalistic culture that oppresses those in developing countries in the first place. In addition, the definite Edenization of the rainforest can have arguably positive and negative benefits on the environmental and social aspects of developing countries. This paper will also examine the long-term effects of green marketing in the global North on the perceptions of the South as a place of unaltered wilderness and pristine ecosystems separate from the social struggles of human society. This paper argues that Fair Trade and alternative consumption has its benefits and constraints/limitations, but overall has greatly improved the plight of developing countries. Inherently, alternative consumption subscribes to neo-liberal systems and capitalistic culture, yet given we all must consume and alternative consumption captures a large audience and corporations with considerable purchasing power, Fair Trade certification and alternative consumption may be an effective means of consumptive change within the system.

Introduction -- A scientific perspective on labeling genetically modified food / Michael W. Pariza -- Genetically-modified organisms for agricultural food production : the extent of the art and the state of the science / R. Michael Roberts -- Biotechnology and the food label : a legal perspective / Frederick Degnan -- Traceability and labeling of GM food and feed in the European Union / Margaret Rosso Grossman -- Genetically engineered animals and the ethics of food labeling / Robert Streiffer and Alan Rubel -- Mandatory GE labels and consumer autonomy / Peter Markie -- Market evidence of consumer response to mandated genetically modified food labels / Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Leonie A. Marks, and Steven S. Vickner -- Frankenfood free : consumer sovereignty, federal regulation and industry control in marketing and choosing food in the U.S. / Thomas O. McGarity -- Regulatory barriers to consumer information / Philip G. Peters and Thomas A. Lambert -- Labeling GM foods : rights, interests, enforcement, and institutional options / Clark Wolf -- Different conceptions of food labels and acceptable risks : some contingent/institutional considerations in favor of labeling / Carl Cranor -- Using food labels to regulate risks / Paul Weirich

Abstract
Many argue that consumers possess a "right to know" when products contain ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms, on the grounds that it would protect consumer autonomy. In this paper, I critically evaluate that claim. I begin by providing a version of the "consumer autonomy" argument, showing that its success relies on ambiguities in the notion of autonomy. I then distinguish four approaches to autonomy and articulate the circumstances under which they would support active disclosure of a product property. I argue that none of these conceptions would support active disclosure of the presence of ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms.

Opponents of the voluntary labeling scheme for genetically modified (GM) food products often argue that consumers have the right to knowʺ and therefore advocate mandatory labeling. In this paper we argue against this line of reasoning. Using experimental auctions conducted with a sample of the resident population of Mannheim, Germany, we show that the quality of the informational signal generated by a mandatory labeling scheme is affected by the number of labels in the market. If there are two labels, one for GM products and one for non-GM products, mandatory and voluntary labeling schemes generate a similar degree of uncertainty about the quality of products that do not carry a label.

What do the following cases have in common? In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,2 the Court upheld the right of a private organization to ignore a generally applicable state statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston,3 the Court upheld the right of parade organizers to exclude gay-rights banners. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harri4s , the Court permitted government funding of religious schools through vouchers issued to low-income parents. And in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, the Court required state funding of the printing costs of a proselytizing religious publication. In each of these cases, a comparatively "conservative" association was pitted against "progressive" ideals. In each of these cases, the Court sided with the association. Do these cases therefore represent a conservative interpretation of the First Amendment? In particular, is a conservative Court overprotecting conservative associations that are intermediate between the family and the state?' I would suggest that labeling these cases as conservative is a mistake. Each can be described in either liberal or conservative terms.7 It is progressive to allow citizens to come together in smaller communities that define their own goals and values, even if-or maybe especially if-those values are at odds with those of the larger polity.8 The state should not be permitted to impose its own values on such communities, whether it does so directly by imposing membership requirements or indirectly by withholding funding. On the other hand, it is conservative to allow individuals to segregate themselves from those they consider inferior or offensive because such segregation diminishes the equal citizenship status of the excluded groups. It is also conservative, in a religiously pluralist society, to use coercively raised monies to fund organizations whose primary mission is the teaching of specific religious doctrine. A better way to ...